Divine Justice Issues (IV)

The justice of God and the problem of evil refers to the theological dilemma, or cognitive dissonance, that arises when trying to reconcile the idea of a perfectly good, just, and all-powerful God with the existence of significant evil and suffering in the world, essentially asking how a just God could allow such things to happen; it's a central question in many religions, particularly Christianity, where the concept of God's justice is a core belief. 

In this chapter we will combine the following two questions as if they were one, for they are closely related. This will no doubt require a few chapters to adequately address. 

1. The justice of God and the problem of evil was the topic of debate in the Book of Job. Do the innocent ever suffer evil at the hand of God? Why does God allow evil things to occur?

3. The justice of God is a debate issue in discussing foreknowledge and predestination (or determinism). If all my choices and deeds are the result of God's will, then how can I be fairly or justly condemned for doing what I could not help doing (what he made me to do)? Is it just for God not to stop a crime that he knows in advance will be committed?

I dealt with this subject in a series titled "Free Will and Determinism" (which you can locate in the archives for August-September of 2023). Also, in my series on Predestination I dealt with it. Let me cite from the second in that series (See here).

The main question to be addressed is whether God's permission and sufferance of events is in any sense causative.  Is it in any way part of God's eternal decrees and purposes?  In other words, can anything come to pass apart from God permissively willing it?  Is divine permission necessary for the occurrence of all events that he does not directly cause?

Many affirm that God's permissive will is not in any sense a cause of what is permitted, and that his permissive will is different from his will of purpose in this regard, as if God had no purpose in what he suffers and permits.     

The most popular "defense" for "solving" the difficulties involved in accepting the above propositions is the "free will defense." 

From the philosoplyofreligion.info web page, the writers say:

"In order to refute the argument from moral evil, then, the theist must show that it is not necessarily the case that if God were omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then the world would not contain moral evil. Under what circumstances, though, for what reason, might such a God allow such evil?

Theists almost invariably meet this question with the free-will defence. Moral evil is caused by the free choices of moral agents, they argue. Free agency, though, is a good thing; a world containing free agents is far better than either a world containing only automata or a world containing no conscious beings at all. An omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God would therefore create a world containing free agents, and in doing so would run the risk of allowing moral evil to enter into the world.

The first way in which the free-will defence works, then, is by distancing God from the moral evil in the world. Moral evil is not brought about by God, the free-will defence argues, but by free agents. God is therefore not the author of moral evil, and so is not responsible for it."

"This conclusion might be criticized, however, in the following way: Even if it is the free agents that perpetrate moral evils that are directly responsible for them, God does seem to bear at least some indirect responsibility for them. After all, God created the free agents, knowing full well the risk that he was running in doing so, and is therefore at least partly to blame for their abuses of their freedom. God it can be argued, is guilty of negligence in creating free agents, even if not of actually perpetrating any moral crimes himself."

"The second way in which the free-will defence works is in justifying the existence of moral evil by justifying God’s creation of free agents. The existence of moral evil, the free-will defence argues, is a consequence of the existence of a greater good: free will. Without free will there could be no moral goodness; a world without free agents would be morally void. The good that is the existence of free moral agents, it is suggested, therefore outweighs the bad that is the existence of moral evil, and God therefore did well in creating free agents even though he knew that some of them would commit moral evils."

"Others have thought that the free-will defence fails because God could have created free agents without risking bringing moral evil into the world. There is nothing logically inconsistent about a free agent that always chooses the good. There are, then, among all of the possible free agents that God might have created, some free agents that would always have chosen the good. Why, it is sometimes asked, did God not create those free agents, leaving the others uncreated?"

"A further criticism of the free-will defence imagines a human being using it to justify his failure to intervene to prevent a crime from being committed. If one of us were able to prevent a brutal murder, but instead allowed it to take place, then we could not justify our inaction using the free-will defence. If we were to say that although we could have prevented the murder, we thought it best to protect the free-will of the murderer by allowing him to carry out his plan, then we would be judged to have made a moral error. Why, if this argument would be unacceptable coming from a human being, should we think it any more acceptable coming from God?"

Let us take a look at a chain of causes.  I am a sinner.  But, why?  Is this not the effect of some cause(s)?  Scripturally speaking, the cause of my being a sinner is because I sin.  Being a sinner is the effect of having sinned.  But, what was the cause of my sinning?  My choice or will to sin.  But, what caused my will to choose sin?  A depraved nature.  But, why do I have a depraved nature?  The sin of Adam, the first man, was the cause of my having a depraved nature.  But, why did Adam sin?  What was the cause of his choice to transgress?  His mutability and freedom of choice.  Why is Adam mutable and free to choose?  Because God gave Adam those qualities?  Why did God give Adam those qualities?

Thus, we have traced the cause of sin back to God, the first cause in the chain of causes.  Therefore, it is false to say that God is, in no sense, the cause of moral evil.  In law and etiology there is the "but for" standard used in determining cause.  "But for" this, then this (effect) would not have occurred.  Of course, this is used to prove that a thing was, in some way, a cause, without determining the nature or kind of cause.  Is it a minor or major cause?  Only a contributing cause of several causes or a singular cause?  Is it a cause that merits culpability and moral and legal "responsibility"?  Though it is undeniable that God is, as the Bible and the old Baptist confessions affirm, the "first cause" of all things, including moral evil, yet it does not teach that he is therefore to be "blamed" for it.  Atheists contend that God, the first cause, if he existed, must be to "blame" for all of man's sins and failures.  They believe that a First Cause that foreknows all things cannot help escaping "blame."  Therefore, they reject the idea of God, or of a God who has foreknowledge of all things. 

If we simply take what the bible says at face value, we cannot deny that God is the cause of all things, including the evil. Notice these verses:

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."  (Rom. 8: 28)

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."  (Rom. 11: 36)

^"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."  (Eph. 1: 11)

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."  (I Cor. 8: 6)

"For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."  (I Cor. 11: 12)

"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."  (II Cor. 5: 18)

Those who deny, for whatever reason, that evil exists by the will of God, do so in spite of the fact that the above verses affirm otherwise. "All things" must include all the good as well as all the evil. For many this is a hard truth to swallow. Their ideas about God and his character will not allow them to say that God, in any sense, is a cause of evil. They think that to affirm such makes God into a devil, or an evil being. However, I think that this is an emotional argument and rationale and not based upon what the scriptures reveal. For some, it is simply a case where they can't handle the truth.

All must agree that God could have created a world where creatures had a degree of free will and yet not commit sin. Many of us believe that this is the case with those who have been saved and confirmed in holiness. When the bible tells us that a day is coming when there is no more death or any of the ills consequent upon sin, it implies that there is no sin, and yet still some degree of free will. We repeat what we said in a previous chapter: God is free and has free will and yet it is not possible for him to do evil or to do wrong. 

All also agree that God created a world with evil in order to bring about some greater good. Just what is that good is where the disagreement comes in. Many say it is because God gave his rational creatures, either angels or man, free will to do either good or evil, and this free will is the good God designs. And why did he give this free will? It is argued that God did not want to force creatures to love and serve him, but wanted them to do so freely. Again, I have addressed this line of argument before in several writings. The facts of the case prove that this is not a cogent line of argument, for the fact is God does exert tremendous force or influence towards causing people to love him. In fact, he commands people to love him, and calls it sin for them not to love him, and threatens them with eternal condemnation if they don't love him. 

God does himself take responsibility for evil existing. Besides the scriptures already mentioned, consider that God says:

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (Isa. 45: 7 kjv)

There are those who resist believing that God creates evil, thinking that God cannot be in any sense the cause of evil. So, in order to make the verse more palatable they insist that the word "evil" does not denote moral evil, but "calamity," or the evil of punishment. They do this in spite of the fact that the Hebrew word "ra" is often translated as wickedness. Its usage shows that it is a versatile term used throughout the Old Testament to describe anything that is morally, ethically, or physically negative. It can refer to actions, thoughts, intentions, or conditions that are contrary to God's nature and commandments. As an adjective, it describes something as evil or wicked, while as a noun, it can denote wickedness or evil itself.

So, since God claims responsibility for the existence of evil, why is it then so difficult for many to find it nigh impossible to take God at his word? Especially seeing that they agree that God created a world where it was not only possible but certain that some would sin? For those who believe that God has foreknowledge, they must accept the proposition that God created a world that he foreknew would become totally sinful and where all would be destroyed in eternal hell. Having foreseen this he could have chosen not to create at all or he could have chosen to create a race of beings who were programmed to love and do only what is right and good. But, he didn't. Why? 

Again, all must agree that God chose to create a world where evil would ensue and this is in essence what God means when he says he creates evil. And, all agree that God intended to bring forth good out of this evil. Some say that good is "free will," and the eventuality of having children and servants who freely chose to become such, who freely chose to love God apart from any constraint or coercion. They say that only by having free will is a person kept from being mere automatons or puppets. But, I insist that there is a higher end in view and that the good that God intended to bring out of the evil he creates is not free will, at least not how it is generally defined. That God can and does bring good out of evil is seen in many cases in the holy scriptures. In the next chapter we will look at some of those examples. We will also discover what is that good end that God has designed to come forth from the existence of evil.

Divine Justice Issues (III)

In the above text the KJV has "by the judgment which he executeth" for "by his acts of justice." In either case we can say that God is revealed by his decisions (or acts of his will) and by his works. In this way he is no different than his creatures, for they too may be known by their acts and deeds. We know that what he has created tells us something about God, for the apostle says:

"For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse." (Rom. 1: 20 ASV)

All created things, physical or spiritual, tell us something about the Creator in much the same way a person's creation reveals something about him or her. A painting, a sculpture, a book, a building, etc., will tell us something about the author of those things. We can tell that the Creator of all things must be very intelligent and very powerful, yea, even omniscient and omnipotent. But, in itself it does not tell us whether he is good, for it is possible to conceive of an omniscient and omnipotent God who is a tyrant and cruel. That is not to say however that God's creation does not at all bear witness to his goodness and loving kindness. So the same apostle says:

"Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” (Acts 14: 17 nkjv)

God's good-naturedness is evident in the fact that he made the world in the beginning a paradise for mankind in which there was no want, privation, sorrow, sickness, nor death, but only joy, peace, and happiness. Even after man's apostasy and rebellion against his Creator, his Creator continued to bless him with the things enumerated above. Rain, fruitful seasons, and other such good things given in God's providence bear witness not only to God's power and wisdom but also to his goodness, mercy, pity, forbearance, longsuffering, compassion, etc. 

We might could break down this subject in this way, all involving what God chooses and does, in other words, "the works (or actions) of God." In the bible we are advised to contemplate the works of God.

"Come and see the works of God" (Psa. 66: 5)

"wisely consider of his doing" (Psa. 64: 9 kjv)

"Consider the work of God" (Eccl. 7: 3 kjv)

When we consider God's work in creation, providence, and redemption, we see how God always does what is right and just. Yet, we must also keep in mind that God, being God, owes no man an explanation for what he wills and does, although he has often given such an explanation. It was correct for the friend of Job to say of God - "he gives not account of any of his matters" (Job 33: 13). God does not have to justify himself before any person or group of persons. If he does give justification or the reasons for his choices and actions, it is done by his sovereign choice and not from imposed obligation. 

When the famous 17th century Christian poet John Milton wrote his classic "Paradise Lost," he began with the goal of "justifying the ways of God to man." In that work and in that expression Milton refers to his attempt to explain and defend God's actions, particularly in allowing evil and suffering in the world, trying to make sense of God's plan even when faced with seemingly unjust situations. So too do we as Christians defend the moral attributes of God, which includes his justice and righteousness. 

“That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings” is a quote from Romans 3:4, citing David's words in the Psalms. The full verse reads, “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, And mightest overcome when thou art judged.” So, how does one justify God? Is it not by agreeing with God? By acknowledging that he is right? So we read of how people "justified God" (Luke 7: 29). Every time we sin we prove God was right in judging and declaring us to be sinners.

Here is a simple syllogism for the Bible believer.

1. All that God wills and does is just.

2. God willed and did A.

3. A is just

If we think that a particular choice or act of God is unjust, we must realize that we are wrong in that supposition and must see how it is not as it seems. This is certainly the sentiment in that old Christian hymn "God Moves In A Mysterious Way." Notice some of the lines in it.

God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform 

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense But trust Him for His grace 

Behind a frowning providence He hides a smiling face 

Blind unbelief is sure to err And scan His work in vain 

For God is His own interpreter And He will make it plain 

In His own time In His own way

We should not jump to conclusions when surveying God's works and think that some of them are not right and just. This is what Job's three friends and Elihu did quite often in judging Job's case. Even Job himself could not clearly see the justification for God to bring all his evils upon him, yet he did not charge God with injustice at any time. One of the reasons why so many misinterpret the works of God is because many of them are inscrutable. Wrote the Psalmist: "Your righteousness is like the great mountains; "Your judgments are a great deep" (Psa. 36: 6 nkjv) Many times we are tempted to jump to conclusions because we are leaning upon our own understanding and failing to trust the Lord (to accept the syllogism given above). Oftentimes we make a hasty generalization because we do not have all the facts or enough information to draw a conclusion. God's decisions and judgments are "a great deep." 

This inability to always comprehend the justness and rightness of God's will and acts, and to see the good in them, is due to our finite understanding. But a genuine trust in the Lord will nevertheless bring forth the confession which says "Just and true are your ways" (Rev. 15: 3), or to say "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32: 4 kjv) God tells us what is just and right. We must remember that what is just and right for God to do is not necessarily just and right for a creature to do. That is because God is unique and has Creator rights and is sovereign over all things. Still, however, for the most part, we are called upon to imitate God in doing justice and what is right. We are instructed by him on what is for us to act rightly and justly. So wrote the prophet:

"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6: 8 ESV)

Think of not only the case of Job, but the case of Abraham in Genesis chapter twenty two. In that story God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. What God would tell his servants to do that? Does that not seem seriously wrong? Not only that but the command produced cognitive dissonance in the mind of Abraham. He is the one who had earlier in life asked God "shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Abraham had already been assured that Isaac, his only sired son, was the one by whom God would fulfill his promise that said that one of his own biological offspring would produce an innumerable people. As he grasped with this difficulty he came to some solutions, and in this he was not leaning upon his own understanding but trusting in God and his goodness and justice. One of the solutions he fixed upon was the idea that when he had killed Isaac upon the altar that God would resurrect him. (See Heb. 11: 19 - "accounting that God was able to raise him from the dead") He also accepted the syllogism stated above. He knew God was just and that what he commanded him to do, though seemingly unjust, was actually just. He simply waited for more information, just as Job did.

We have the same difficulty when trying to justify God in his commanding Israel to slaughter (genocide) a certain people, man, woman, and child. Many falsely reason this way: That command is unjust, therefore God is unjust. But, again, faith calls for trust in God. Just like the song cited above says, "God is his own interpreter and he will make it plain," and that in his own time, as the case of Job shows. To demand that God show up and answer us shows a lack of trust in God and irreverence. There are some acts of God that may seem to us to be unjust or unfair, but we must wait till God is pleased to reveal to us the reason behind his choices, judgments, and actions. That is why Christians sing "we will understand it better by and by." When we are perfected and living in heaven we will understand the reason and the why of all God's works and we will loudly say "God is righteous and just." 

Divine Justice Issues (II)

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 

(Gen. 18: 25)

"For the Lord is a God of justice" 

(Isaiah 30: 18)

It is perhaps good for us to lay a good foundation by citing some biblical texts that assert the justice and righteousness of God. We should also ask - "How is God's justice related to his holiness?" Or, how related to his "moral attributes"?

God is Just

Other companion verses to the ones given in the heading above are these:

Deuteronomy 32: 4: "The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is He." 

 

Psalm 89: 14: "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you." 

 

II Thessalonians 1: 6-8: "God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled." 

 

Psalm 11:7: "The Lord is righteous, he loves justice." 

Psalm 19: 9: "the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether." 

In the previous introductory chapter I listed the main questions discussed within the context of God's justice, righteousness, and overall goodness. These we will get to in due time. But, as we are still introducing this subject, we will preface the body of this treatise with further general observations and first principles.

We take it as a firm foundational principle the proposition that God is just and always does what is right. We cannot deduce from that fact, however, that God always does what is right in the eyes of his creatures. Satan and the demons, as an example, do not believe that proposition. Nor does sinful and rebellious man always have right views about God's justice. Indeed he often thinks that God is being unfair to him or to others. This reminds us of the wise words of king Solomon who said: "There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14: 12 nkjv)

People disagree every day on whether an action is just or unjust. One says action A is just and another says it is unjust. An example would be on the abortion question. Thus justice is related to ethics and morals. So too with either the lack of punishment towards a criminal by a judge or by too much punishment, by what is judged to be "cruel and unusual punishment." In "Thinking Biblically and Theologically about Justice" Stephen Wellum (See here) says (emphasis mine):

"Our world is consumed with talk about “justice” and specifically “social justice.” Yet similar to how our world has redefined the word “love,” most discussions of “justice” lack definition and any sense of a standard of what justice actually is."

Wellum also wrote:

"But if Christians are to make headway in this discussion, we must first ask what justice is in relation to God before we speak about what justice is in the world. If we do not ground “justice” in an objective, universal standard—namely God himself—then the concept of “justice” becomes only relative, which inevitably results in a disastrous application of so-called “justice” in the world."

We must not rely upon our intellect or reasoning in judging whether God, or something else, is just and right. Only God can tell us what is just and right. Solomon says "lean not unto your own understanding" (Prov. 3: 5) affirming that God ought to be what is trusted. Also, as we will see, in writing his laws in the nature of man he also gives inner intuitive knowledge about what is just and right. When God tells us something is just or unjust, right or wrong, it will agree with our inner sense of justice much of the time.

Wellum also wrote:

"The only warrant for a universal, objective ground for justice is God himself. God is the law because his will and nature determines what is right and just. For this reason, a Christian view of justice stands in total contrast to our secular-postmodern society that views “justice” as a mere human social construct."

This brings us to what is called the "euthyphro dilemma." I have written on this in other writings. For instance I wrote this about it (See here):

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"  In other words, "is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" 

Are some actions right or wrong in themselves, independently of God's commands?  Are moral standards independent of God?  When God acts, does he conform to moral standards that exist apart from him and his will?  How is God sovereign and omnipotent, and the only free and independent being, if he is subject to laws outside of himself?  Those who affirm that things are right or wrong because God has willed them to be so embrace what is called "the divine command theory."  God is the sole determiner of all right and wrong, just as he is the determiner as to what effects spring from causes.

Perhaps we should divide our thoughts about divine justice in this order: 

First, the justice of God in creation.

Second, the justice of God in his providence.

Third, the justice of God in salvation.

Fourth, the justice of God in condemnation.

In each of these categories we would have many sub-categories. For instance, under the first we would deal with what is called "the problem of evil" and of how God can be just, righteous, and good if he wills, or willfully allows, evil to occur, either natural or moral evil. It deals with those common thoughts of human beings in regard to the thought of the existence of a Creator or God and the questions 1) why did God make us with the possibility of sin and death? and 2) why do bad things happen to good people? and 3) why did God let an evil thing to occur? Or why did he not prevent it? 

Proceeding in the order above we would address the questions raised in the previous introductory chapter under each section. Many of those questions would be addressed in focusing on God's original creation of angels and men, such as asking why God created a creature who he foreknew would rebel against him and bring destruction to him? Or, why did he create man with the capacity for sin? Why did he allow a cunning tempter to enter the scene in Eden and to deceive Eve? Was he entrapping Adam and Eve? Was it a "setup"? Some might could well see things that way without other information to deter them from that hasty assumption. 

I take it as a truth upheld by scripture that evil, whether in morals or in calamities, is the result of God willing it to be so and that he had a just right to so will. Had God wanted to create a world in the beginning that made evil impossible he could and would have done so. But, he did not. Therefore, though being good and just, he must have had some good reason for creating a world where evil was a possibility, yea, even a certainty. What that good and superior reason or justification is invites the mind to contemplate. Many of us believe that such a world will one day be in existence in heaven and in the ages to come following this "present evil age." (Gal. 1: 4) Others think that God cannot create a world where evil is not a possibility and therefore conclude that the present order of things (world) is "the best of all possible worlds," as 17th-century German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz theorized. It was also the view of well known apologist C.S. Lewis (See my posting on him in my series of "Free Will and Determinism" - here) In that posting I cited these words from him:

"Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will?" 

Some argue as did Lewis that the giving to creatures a "free will" makes sin possible if not certain. Yet, God has free will and that does not mean he can or will sin. In fact, we may ask "can God sin?" If sin is the transgression of law (I John 3: 4), is there a law that God is under obligation to obey? Are there things God the Creator can do that would be sin for creatures to do? Yes, for God commands all to worship and to love him above all other beings and things. For a creature to do so would be sin. There is such a thing as "Creator Rights," or God's rights as the one universal sovereign. God is unique, which is an aspect of his holiness. There is no other being like him. 

God is under no law, other than the law of his own nature. He is who he is because he wills to be so. So he appeared in the burning bush to Moses and said about himself - "I am that I am." Further, it would be impossible for God to will to be different than who he is, for the simple reason that he is perfect, already omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc., and to will to be otherwise would show that he was not all wise, for he would be acting foolishly to will to be less perfect. So we read in scripture about things that God cannot do, such as "cannot lie" (Heb. 6: 18; Titus 1:2; etc.), cannot change because he is immutable (Mal. 3: 6; James 1: 17; etc.), "he cannot deny himself" (II Tim. 2: 13), etc. 

It is important that we establish a truth that is denied by some, such as in "Process Theology" or "Open Theism," that God foresees everything without exception.  

In process theology, the concept of "divine foreknowledge" is rejected, meaning that God does not have complete knowledge of the future, but only of the present and of the possibilities that exist within it. God knows what could happen, but not what will happen until it actually occurs, allowing for genuine human freedom and a dynamic relationship between God and creation. Open theism is a Christian theological view that says that God does not know the future actions of humans. Yet, the scriptures say otherwise. Notice a few of those texts.

"Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure.’" (Isa. 46: 10 nkjv)

“Let them (idol gods) bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, That we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come." (Isa. 41: 22 nkjv)

This ability to foresee the future in every detail is a unique attribute of the one true God of the bible and is one way we can know that he, and he alone, is God. 

The bible is filled with examples where God foretold what would come to pass, of which every God given prophecy is an example. Many of these examples do in fact relate to the choices and actions resulting from them, contrary to what the open theists assert. The Lord Jesus told Peter that he would deny him three times in a short period of time following Jesus' arrest and trial. Peter chose to deny Christ. Ergo, Christ in his divinity had foreknowledge of the free choices of people. 

We also read these words of the apostle Peter:

"Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death." (Acts 2: 23 nkjv)

That text simply says that God foreknew what the Jews, for the most part, would do in regard to Christ, knowing that the Jewish leadership would reject Christ and have him crucified. Ergo, God knows what the choices of people will be before they make those choices. Thus, open theism is denied. This attribute of foreknowledge was not a mere prediction or forecasting, as we see done by humans in weather forecasting, or in economic forecasting, etc. God's foreknowledge is not mere educated guesses. What God foresees will come to pass will in fact come to pass, for God cannot be wrong about anything. Not only that, God foresees all future possibilities. In other words, he knows what would have happened had a creature chosen differently, if he had opted for action A rather than Action B. This is called a knowledge of counterfactuals. An example of a counterfactual conditional statement is this statement: "If kangaroos had no tails, they would topple over." Notice this text:

"And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them. For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, but to the house of Israel; Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee. But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel are impudent and hardhearted." (Eze. 3: 4-7 KJV)

Here God has foreknowledge of a future possibility, one that did not actually come to pass. Notice these words of the Lord Jesus:

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." (Matt. 11: 21 nkjv)

Thus, God not only foresees actual future things he also sees other possible outcomes. It is the former however that will be of concern for us. We are discussing why God allows an evil that he knows as not only a possibility but an actual realization of an action.

Divine Justice Issues

In this introductory chapter or post we will begin to discuss the most common issues that people debate in regard to the justice of God. This is not an easy subject. Theologians and philosophers have sought out answers to the most common objections that are raised against the idea of God being just. I have had plans to research this subject further and put my thoughts and the results of my research into a series with the hope that it will be of benefit to others who are likewise interested in this subject. 

In several areas of bible doctrine there is debate over whether or not God is just (or righteous) in his dealings with his creatures. Not all of the difficulties dealing with God's justice are fully understood, being in some respects still mysterious.

Questions To Be Addressed

1. The justice of God and the problem of evil was the topic of debate in the Book of Job. Do the innocent ever suffer evil at the hand of God? Why does God allow evil things to occur?

2. The justice of God is a debated issue in discussing God's condemnation of all men for the one sin of Adam. Is it right for God to condemn others for the sin of Adam? Is it right for God to cause me to be born into this world with a sinful nature? Is it right for the Lord to allow others to suffer the evil consequences of another man's wrongs?

3. The justice of God is a debate issue in discussing foreknowledge and predestination (or determinism). If all my choices and deeds are the result of God's will, then how can I be fairly or justly condemned for doing what I could not help doing (what he made me to do)? Is it just for God not to stop a crime that he knows in advance will be committed?

4. Is it just for God to punish one person for another person's crime, as in the atonement? Jesus was punished for the sins of others. How is that just and fair? Is it just for God to allow a substitute?

5. Is it just to declare one righteous by proxy? The righteousness of a believer is perfect, being not his own righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ imputed to him (or put to his credit). Is that just and right?

6.  The justice of God is a debate issue in discussing God's choice of sinners to salvation before the world began by grace alone. Is it just for God to choose one to salvation and not another? 

7. Is it just and fair for God to give more to one than to another? This is a question involving what is called "distributive justice." Or, is God fair? 

8. Was it right for God to punish the animal creation for the sin of man? 

9. Was it right for God to create beings who he foreknew would rebel and be punished forever for it?

10. Does God owe all a chance to be saved? Does he actually give all an equal chance or opportunity to be saved? Would he be unjust not to do so?

11. Can God do things that creatures cannot do, morally speaking? In other words, is God obligated to obey the same laws that he gives to his creatures? In other words, is God righteous because he keeps moral laws? 

12. Is eternal punishment fair? 

These are the subjects we will try to address in this series. We may add another question or two as we do the research and gather our thoughts together and put them in writing. Also, we always invite feedback from our readers on any of our writings.

Spirit Of Adoption (13)

Christ and Huiothesia

In the life of the average Hebrew boy there were three major events which drew broad public attention to him. This was true in the life of Christ and also in the lives of God's children. We have written on this in previous chapters but will add these thoughts, some of which are repetitious. We may call these events "the stages of manhood" or "rites of passage." 

The first of these events was his "Circumcision," which occurred when he was an infant, at eight days old. This was the moment that he was marked as a "covenant man" in Israel, and was celebrated throughout the community. So Luke writes: "And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb." (Luke 2: 21 nkjv) Paul also speaks of himself as being "circumcised the eighth day" (Phil. 3: 5).

In the work of a believer being begotten of the Lord, the Lord also circumcises his heart and spirit.

"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." (Col.2: 11 nkjv)

"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." (Rom. 2: 28-29 nkjv)

The second major event was his "Bar-Mitzvah," which took place as he was about to enter into puberty. The word Bar-Mitzvah actually means "a son accountable," and this signified the time, not only when he was held accountable for keeping the Commandments of God, but also when he was to become an apprentice under his father in the family business. This, too, was celebrated as a very special event in the life of the child, just as it is today. We see this alluded to in the life of Jesus when he was about twelve years of age. Notice what the Gospel record says:

"And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know it; but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.” And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” (Luke 2: 42-49 nkjv)

After Bar Mitzvah the child began to spend less time under tutors and to spend more time with his father and learning firsthand the family business and to imitate the father. It was a point where a child went through a rite of passage and took a giant step towards sonship and likeness to his father. We see this in the life of those who are born of the Spirit. After their new birth and circumcision they spend their spiritual childhood under teachers and caregivers. Paul speaks of them in these texts:

"And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children..." (Eph. 4: 11-14 nkjv)

"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father." (Gal. 4: 1-2 nkjv)

As we have seen in previous chapters, no child of God is perfected in this life. Many seem to be stuck in childhood all of their lives. Others reach an intermediate age following years of growth in Christ, corresponding to the years following Bar Mitzvah. In their first years following their new birth they are under tutors. They also still need teachers in their post Bar Mitzvah stage, but they are under more direct teaching of their Father. This would correspond to the more mature study of the word of God apart from his teachers. We might compare this to the three stages of education in most school systems where we first go to "grammar" or "elementary" school, then to "middle school," and then to "high school" and to college. Notice these words of the apostle along this line:

"11 of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Heb. 5: 11-14 nkjv)

The question then becomes - "how mature can a child of God become in this life?" Or, "does a child of God reach full growth in this life or in the next?" The above text in Ephesians chapter four seems to imply that becoming full grown men who are fully conformed to the image of the Son of God will not occur until the day of the resurrection, which as we have seen, is the day when they will be installed (or son placed) into their inheritance. That is when they will become a "perfect man" and attain the full stature of their sonship. That is also when all the saints will be unified in the faith and in the knowledge of God.

The third event was what was known as the "Huiothesia," or the (young man's) "adoption ceremony." The word "Huiothesia" means "Son Placement," and indicates the time when a male child reached what was considered to be the age of maturity (somewhere around 30). At this time, the father of the young man would place his hand on the head of his son and openly proclaim, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased! I bestow upon him now all of my riches and power and authority (through power of attorney) so that he might act on my behalf in all of my affairs." This would correspond to the resurrection day as Paul said in Romans 8: 23. In a previous chapter we mentioned all the futuristic expressions in that chapter that are connected with this coming ceremony, involving the revelation of the sons of God and of their being honored and glorified and given right to fully possess their inheritance and to rule over it. It is the day when they obtain "the full realization of adult sonship." It is that day when Christ "brings many sons unto glory." (Heb. 2: 10) It is when the Father and Son say to his children "well done." (Matt. 25: 21)

Jesus was of full age when he began his public ministry. This also marks the time when he was perfected and able to speak and act on behalf of his Father. It was during this stage that we heard the Father witness to his Son Jesus by saying "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt. 3: 16-17; Mark 1: 11; Luke 3: 22)

"While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." (Matt. 17: 5)

There will be similar formal declarations made before the grand assize when Christ comes again. Christ will make a kind of "emancipation declaration." He will acknowledge that his children have reached the end of their growth and education. Paul alludes to such when he says - "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it" (I Cor. 3: 13 kjv).  In the previous chapters we showed how the huiothesian ceremony, like the Bar Mitzvah or Toga Virillis ceremonies, involved a father making public declarations. This is the huiothesia proper.

A "son" is one who has been behaving as a mature obedient son, maturing more and more into the Father's image. The Son of God in his divinity was never at any single moment any more or less the "Son of God" than he has been immutably from eternity. But, as respects his human preparation for being the "Son of God" in every way, he needed to be perfected, go from being a babe and child to a full grown man who was entitled to rule with his Father. This is his "being made perfect."

The Man Child of the Apocalypse

"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne." (Rev. 12: 5)

Who is this "man child"? Many think it is Christ and alludes to his being persecuted and then as having been caught up (his ascension) into heaven and who is destined to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. Others believe that the man child is a figure of the body of saved people. Others, like I do, see how the man child is fulfilled in Christ and also in his people. 

Vincent's Word Studies: "A man-child (υἱὸν ἄῤῥενα) Lit., a son, a male. The correct reading is ἄρσεν, the neuter, not agreeing with the masculine individual (υἱὸν son) but with the neuter of the genus. The object is to emphasize, not the sex, but the peculiar qualities of masculinity - power and vigor. Rev., a son, a man-child. Compare John 16:21; Jeremiah 20:15."

"Of special note is the double emphasis of masculinity here. Alexander Campbell translated this, "She bore a masculine son." Alexander Campbell, as quoted by James D. Strauss, The Seer, the Saviour, and the Saved (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1972), p. 162. Pieters rendered it, "A son, a he-man, a fierce assertion of the virility of Christ." Albertus Pieters, op. cit., p. 159." (As cited here)

The Bible portrays Jesus as the perfect model for what it means to be a man. No one "measures up to" him, although after the resurrection and glorification of believers, they will attain to his stature, being then wholly, in body and spirit, conformed to the image of Christ. He is eminently a masculine man and all that is signified by being such, which includes the attributes of strength, endurance, wisdom and knowledge, leadership, etc. Jesus was no sissy nor effeminate. He was no coward either. 

Believers are to become just as perfect a man as is Christ. Christ stands before us as the ideal of manly greatness and beauty. The church has not yet grown to maturity, but is destined to be like Him, to be as perfect as he is, as Paul said in the above passage in Ephesians: "till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."

Here are some other passages which speak of the people of God striving to be, and one day obtaining, to adult status.

“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.” (1 Cor. 16: 13-14).

"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways." (I Cor. 13: 11)

"Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." (I Cor. 14: 20 kjv)

On the first text Albert Barnes has this to say in his commentary:

"Quit you like men - (ἀνδρίζεσθε andrizesthe, from ἀνήρ anēr, a man). The word occurs no where else in the New Testament. In the Septuagint it occurs in Joshua 1:6-7, Joshua 1:9,Joshua 1:18; 1 Chronicles 28:20; 2 Chronicles 32:7; Nehemiah 2:1; and in 18 other places. See Trommius' Concordance. It occurs also in the classic authors; see Xenophon, Oec. Nehemiah 5:4. It means, to render one manly or brave; to show oneself a man; that is, not to be a coward, or timid, or alarmed at enemies, but to be bold and brave. We have a similar phrase in common use: "Be a man," or "Show yourself a man;" that is, be not mean, or be not cowardly."

Believers, after they have been "born of God" should grow up in Christ. But, even the fastest growing believers do not reach full growth and maturity in their lives. That will not come to their soul or spirits until they enter in spirit into heaven's paradise. It will not occur to their mortal bodies until the resurrection. Not till the second coming of Christ will believes become the "perfect man" and be completely conformed in their sonship to the sonship of Christ.

This of course also teaches us that those who have died in infancy and gone to heaven do not remain babes but instantly grow up, either when they enter paradise in their spirits or when their bodies are also conformed to the glorious body of the Son of God.

Another text that bears upon this idea of attaining adult status and perfection, and of masculine attributes, is in a text from Revelation chapter twelve.

Jesus or Saints (or both)?

"And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne." (12: 4-5 nkjv)

Wrote J.A. Seiss in "The Apocalypse" (here) in commentary upon Revelation chapter twelve:

"There is a peculiar manliness ascribed to this child. It is not only “a man child,” as our English version renders the phrase, but more literally “a son, a male,” or a son who is a male. There is special emphasis laid upon the masculinity."

This emphasis upon masculinity is in line with the other texts cited above. Of course, this does not mean that all resurrected saints will be men with male genitals. We wrote on this in my series "Beliefs About The Afterlife" (See link for all the chapters in that book on this blog). Surely the adult sons of God will also have all the virtues of femininity, for in Christ Jesus there is "neither male nor female" (Gal. 3: 28). However, when we think of how men and women differ, we must put strength or power at the head, for Peter says that the woman is "the weaker vessel" (I Peter 3: 7), and there will be no weakness in the constitutions of the saints when they have been resurrected and glorified. Paul says that in the resurrection of saints that they are "raised in power." (I Cor. 15: 43)

Seiss continued:

"Nay, the letter of the description is such as to prove that this child is collective and composite, the same as the mother, and likewise includes people of both sexes. The word (arsen) which means male, has the peculiarity of being in the neuter gender, and so applies to both men and women, and cannot apply to any one individual. We have a somewhat similar instance in 2 Timothy 3:6, where the apostle speaks of certain perverted religionists, “which creep into houses and lead captive silly women” (gunaikaria), that is, silly women of the neuter gender, and so women, or womenish ones, of both sexes. Sex, however, is not so much the subject of this arsen as the higher qualities of manhood common to both men and women. Such forms of speech lose all propriety except when construed with the implication that a body of persons is meant, and that this body includes women as well as men, and men as well as women. But it is a body at the same time distinguished throughout with a special masculinity, which knows no sex; that is, with the most manly of virtues, and the most vigorous and heroic of characteristics."

As we will see, this "male son" is applicable of Christ himself, but also applicable to the saints once they have been resurrected and glorified.

Seiss added: 

 

"But if we understand here all God’s saints, all who have been begotten of the Holy Ghost, of every age, then every letter of the narrative is realized to the full. Here are men and women, in multitudes upon multitudes, “of whom the world was not worthy,” alike pervaded with the highest qualities of virtue, courage, self denial and strength. They are all conquerors. They all have overcome the world, triumphed over the powers of darkness, won the race of faith, and through the grace of God possessed themselves of titles to ever- lasting crowns and honours. Their masculinity in these respects is unquestionable and most intense, whether they be men or women as to sex. Nor is this so true and characteristic of any people that have lived, or that shall live, as it is of the true children of God of all time. Here we find all the noblest and best of the race, and the embodiment of the highest virtue and wisdom that ever pulsated in the arteries of humanity. Here is the proper “man child,” if ever there was or will be one upon earth."

I believe that is correct. Further, since we have proven that full growth and likeness to Christ does not become a reality until the resurrection at the second coming of Christ, then their being "placed as adult sons" at the right hand of both the Father and Christ has not yet occurred, but are, as Paul said, "earnestly waiting and anticipating the huiothesia." (Rom. 8: 23)

H.A. Ironside makes these comments (As cited here):

"Is there then any incongruity in understanding the man-child to represent both Christ Jesus our Lord and His church?" - "We may then, on the authority of Scripture itself, safely affirm that the man-child represents the one new Man who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron—Christ, the Head, and the church, His body." (emphasis mine)

That is what I believe about the text in Revelation. It is also what other scriptures also testify to, as we have seen. In "The Man God Has Ordained" by T. Austin-Sparks, in Chapter 9 - "The Man Child" (See here) the author says these things which I endorse (emphasis mine):

"Here we have, I believe, the whole matter of sonship gathered into representative fullness. This son, this man child, is sonship in representative fullness: that in which all the principles and elements of Christ have been brought to utterness."

That is "the huiothesia"! It has to do with becoming sons, or becoming the image of the Father.

Austin-Sparks also says:

"The conception of Christ takes place in the believer by the revelation of Christ in the heart. Paul said: “It was the good pleasure of God... to reveal his Son in me” (Gal. 1:15,16). Again he said: “God...shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). The man child — sonship — is conceived by the revelation within of Jesus Christ." 

So, this mystery of union with Christ, and of the progression towards full sonship and likeness to Christ, involves 1) the believer growing up and progressing toward perfection, "in Christ" and 2) Christ growing up in the believer. Christ is conceived within the believer when the believer firsts trust in Christ and receives him. As the believer grows up in his spiritual life Christ grows in him. Wonderful thought!

Austin-Sparks also says:

"Paul said to the Galatians, and through them to us: “My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you...” (Gal. 4:19). The conception has taken place, there is something there, but there has to be a full formation of Christ within. Paul says, “I am in distress, in agony, in great pain, till Christ be fully formed in you.” The “man child” is the full formation of Christ in the church."

Amen! Well said!

Therefore we see how perfect manhood, described by masculine strength, or a he-man, is a picture not only of Christ in his perfected and glorified humanity, but of his mystical body too. Those who are united to Christ or have had Christ conceived within them are destined to full sonship, imitating the sonship of Christ. 

Spirit Of Adoption (12)

Wrote John Gill about adoptionism (Monarchianism) in regard to the Son of God (From Body of Doctrinal Divinity, chapter 28; See here): 

"At other times they tell us, he is the Son of God by adoption; of which the Scriptures give not the least hint. To which may be objected, that Christ is God’s own Son, his proper Son, the Son of himself; and therefore not adopted: whoever adopts an own son? or what reason can there be for it? adoption among men, is not of their own sons: but usually when they have none of their own; as the instances of the adoption of Moses by Pharaoh’s daughter, and of Esther by Mordecai show: besides, Christ is the begotten Son of God; and if begotten, then not adopted; these are inconsistent; yea, he is his only begotten Son; whereas, if he was his Son by adoption, he could not be said to be his only Son, since he has many adopted ones; even as many as are predestinated to the adoption of children, by Christ."

I find this astounding since Gill believed that God does adopt people to become his children. When he wrote upon the subject of adoption as respects the children or sons of God, he admits that they are such by having been both born and adopted. In the above, however, in denying that Christ was adopted (Monarchianism or Adoptionism) he sees how absurd it is to claim that someone is both a son of someone by both adoption and birth, and yet ironically he later affirms this very absurdity! However, he did, unlike others, put adoption before the foundation of the word and the new birth (or regeneration) in time. 

On adoption of the children of God, Gill writes the following in chapter eight (See here).

"I have treated already, see on Adoption in 853, of adoption as an immanent act of the divine will, which was in God from eternity; hence the elect of God were not only predestinated to the adoption of children, to the blessing itself, openly and actually to enjoy it in time, and to the inheritance adopted to..."

This is a minority view. Most advocates of adoption theory say that being born of God occurs at the same time as being adopted, although some, like Dr. John Piper (who I have cited in previous chapters), say God first adopts and then begets, yet not before the world began as Gill. In chapter four I cited these words of Gill and his commentary on Romans 8: 23:

"waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. Adoption is explained by the redemption of the body; and by the one may be known what the other means."

That to me appears to be a contradiction. He says adoption occurs before the foundation of the world and then indicates that it is yet future.

He says further in the treatise:

"There is a difference also between adoption and regeneration, though, divines usually confound these two together. They both have the same author; the same God and Father adopts and regenerates; they flow from the same love and grace; and the same persons that are adopted are regenerated; and they are adopted and begotten again unto the same inheritance: but adoption is before regeneration; the one is an act of God’s will in eternity, the other is an act and work of his grace in time; the one is the cause, the other the effect; men are not adopted because regenerated, which would seem unnecessary; but they are regenerated because adopted; “because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts”; to regenerate, to sanctify, and testify their adoption (Gal. 4:6), regeneration is the fruit and effect of adoption, and the evidence of it (John 1:12, 13), adoption gives the name of sons, and a title to the inheritance; and regeneration gives the nature of sons, and a meetness for the inheritance."

But again, he is contradicting what he said elsewhere. In the previous citation he says that one cannot be both adopted and begotten, saying "if begotten, then not adopted." He is speaking of Christ being begotten and therefore not adopted as the Monarchians asserted. Of course, I do believe that Christ was "son placed" (huiothesia) in regard to being the Son of God in his humanity, and that this occurred after he had become a full grown man about the age of thirty. But, more on that shortly.

Gill might have thought that he had dealt with the incongruity of how a person can be both begotten and adopted by putting adoption first. He then could argue as others and say that since adoption does not give the adopted the nature of the adopter it is necessary to also give them birth. However, even Gill would have to admit that God, before the foundation of the world, had determined to give birth to children and so this fact in itself would preclude him determining to adopt them. Gill seems to limit the idea of adoption to the choice to adopt a particular person and is why he puts adoption before the world began. But, whoever adopted a child not yet in existence? But, did not God also choose to give birth to particular ones, a kind of planned parenthood? If so, Gill's logic would force us to conclude that people were begotten of God before the world began. If the choice to adopt is adoption then why is not the choice to beget not actual begetting?

By his commentary above he also affirms that the divine begetting of children does not do what the adoption had previously done, which is to make one a child and member of the family. It is absurd to say that being begotten of God does not make us children! He also says that adoption gives one his name, and not his birth! That is another absurdity. He also says that it is adoption that gives the adopted right to the divine inheritance, and in saying this he denies that a right to God's inheritance comes by being born of God. The only thing that being begotten (regenerated) does is to give the adopted son the adopted father's nature.

He wrote further in regard to how adoption of the children of God is both like and unlike human adoption, a thing we discussed somewhat in previous chapters. He writes:

"Between civil and spiritual adoption, in some things there is an agreement, and in some things a difference.

First, In some things they agree.

1. In the name and thing, νιοθεσια, a putting among the children; so spiritual adoption is called (Jer 3:19), or putting, or taking, one for a son, who was not so by nature and birth; which is the case of adoption by special grace; it is of such who are, “by nature, children of wrath”, and “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel”; and taking these from the family of the world, to which they originally belonged, into the family of God, and household of faith (Eph. 2:3, 12, 19)."

So, this happened before the world began?

"2. As civil adoption is of one to an inheritance who has no legal right to it; so is special and spiritual adoption. None, in a civil sense, are adopted, but to an inheritance of which they are made heirs; and so such who are adopted in sense are adopted to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and eternal; and as the one are adopted to an inheritance they had no natural right unto, nor any legal claim upon; so the other are such who have sinned, and come short of the eternal inheritance, and can make no legal pretension to it by works of the law, (Rom. 4:14; Gal. 3:18)."

Again, why adopt if there is intention to beget? If being begotten makes one an heir, why adopt for the same reason?

"3. Civil adoption is the voluntary act of the adopter. Among the Romans, when a man adopted one for his son, they both appeared before a proper magistrate, and the adopter declared his will and pleasure to adopt the person presented, he consenting to it. Special and spiritual adoption is an act of the sovereign goodwill and pleasure of God, who has predestinated his to the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ, to himself, according to the “good pleasure of his will”; it is a pure act of his grace to make them his sons and heirs, and to give them the kingdom, the inheritance, even eternal life, which is the free gift of God, through Christ (Eph. 1:5; Luke 12:32; Rom. 6:23)."

However, does not being born of God make children and heirs? 

"4. In civil adoption the adopted took and bore the name of the adopter: so the adopted sons of God have a new name, which the mouth of the Lord their God names, a new, famous, and excellent name, which no man knoweth, saving he that receives it; a name better than that of sons and daughters of the greatest earthly potentate; a name by which they are called the sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty (Isa. 62:2; 56:5; Rev. 2:17; 1 John 3:1)."

But, does not being born of God give the children the name of their Father? 

"5. Such who are adopted in a civil sense are taken into the family of the adopter, and make a part of it; and stand in the relation, not of servants, but sons; so those who are adopted of God, are taken into that family, which is named of him in heaven and in earth, and are of his household; in which they are not as servants, nor merely as friends, but as the children of God and household of faith (Eph. 3:15, 19; John 15:15, 16; Gal. 3:26; 6:10)."

But, if this is true, then being born of God does not put one into the family. If one is already in the family by being adopted before the world began, then his being born of God does not put one into the family.

"6. Persons adopted in a civil sense, as they are considered as children, they are provided for as such: provision is made for their education, their food, their clothing, their protection, and attendance, and for an inheritance and portion for them: all the children of God, his adopted ones, they are taught of God, by his Spirit, his ministers, his word and ordinances; they are trained up in the school of the church, and under the ministry of the word, and are instructed by the preaching of the gospel, and by precepts, promises, and providences; as for food, they are continually supplied with what is suitable for them, the sincere milk of the word for babes, and meat for strong men; they are fed with hidden manna, with marrow and fatness, with the finest of the wheat, with the richest dainties of the gospel feast: as for their clothing, it is change of raiment, clothing of wrought gold, raiment of needlework, a robe of righteousness, and garments of salvation; fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of the saints: for their protection, they have angels to wait upon them and guard them, who encamp about them, to preserve them from their enemies, and have the care and charge of them, to keep them in their ways; yea, they are kept by the Lord himself, as the apple of his eye, being his dear sons and pleasant children: and the inheritance he has prepared for them, of which they are heirs, is among the saints in light; is incorruptible, undefiled, never fading, and eternal, and is even a kingdom and glory."

According to Gill people are children of God before they are begotten! And, being born of God is not what makes people the children of God!

"7. Such as are adopted by men, come under the power, and are at the command of the adopter, and are under obligation to perform all the duties of a son to a parent; as to honour, reverence, and obey, and be subject to his will in all things. All which are due from the adopted sons of God, to him, their heavenly Father; honour is what God claims as his due from his children; “a son honoureth his father; if I then be a father, where is mine honour?” (Mal. 1:60, obedience to all his commands highly becomes, and is obligatory on them; they ought to be obedient children, and imitate God in all his immutable perfections, particularly in holiness, benevolence, kindness, and goodness; and even should be subject to his corrections and chastisements, which are not merely for his pleasure, but for their profit and good (1 Pet. 1:14-16; Eph. 5:1; Matthew 5:45, 48; Luke 6:35, 36; Heb. 12:9, 10)."

In the old testament passages cited by Gill about God being "Father" cannot refer to an adopted father, as I showed in previous chapters. The Hebrew word for father denotes someone who begat children. The same with the Hebrew and Greek words for "children," which denote a birth child.

After pointing out the similarities between human adoption and divine adoption Gill then speaks of the dissimilarities. 

"Secondly, In some things civil and spiritual adoption differ. 

 

"1. Civil adoption could not be done without the consent of the adopted, his will was necessary to it. Among the Romans the adopter, and the person to be adopted, came before a proper magistrate, and in his presence the adopter asked the person to be adopted, whether he was willing to be his son; and he answered, I am willing; and so the thing was agreed and finished. But in spiritual adoption, though the believer, when he comes to be acquainted with the privilege of adoption he is favored with, and is highly delighted and pleased with it, and admires and adores the grace that has brought him into the relation; yet his will and consent were not necessary to the constitution of the act of adoption; it may be said of that as of every other blessing of grace, that “it is not of him that willeth”; such was the grace of God that he did not wait for the will of the creature to complete this act, but previous to it put him among the children; and such is his sovereign power, that he had an uncontrollable right to take whom he would, and make his sons and daughters; and such the influence and efficacy of his grace, as to make them willing in the day of his power to acknowledge the relation with the greatest wonder and thankfulness, and to behave according to it." 

 

In previous chapters I have also spoken of the similarities and differences between modern or Roman adoption and diving "adoption" (or son placing). I pointed out how on the question of whether the adopted had to give his consent to being adopted there was disagreement among bible teachers. The way most preachers explain divine adoption, however, leaves the impression that God, like most western adoptions, adopts infants. In that case, the adoption cannot be contingent upon the choice of the infant.

"2. Civil adoption was allowed of, and provided for the relief and comfort of such who had no children, and to supply that defect in nature; but in spiritual adoption this reason does not appear: God did not adopt any of the sons of men for want of a son and heir; he had one, and in a higher class of sonship than creatures can be; more excellent and divine, and suitable to the divine nature; his own proper Son, begotten of him, was as one brought up with him, and his daily delight; the dear Son of his love, in whom he was well pleased; and who always did the things that were pleasing to him, and who inherited all his perfections and glory."

We also spoke of these things in previous chapters. If a man has a begotten son(s), then he does not need to adopt. God has no need to adopt. That one simple proposition is enough to refute those who say that God both begets and adopts the same persons.

"3. In civil adoption there are generally some causes and reasons in the adopted which influence and move the adopter to take the step he does. There are two instances of adoption in scripture, the one of Moses, the other of Esther; in both there were some things that wrought upon the adopters to do what they did. Moses was a goodly child, exceeding fair, and lovely to look upon, which, with other things, moved the daughter of Pharaoh to take him up out of the water, to take care of him, and adopt him for her son; Esther was also a fair and beautiful maid, and besides was related to Mordecai, which were the reasons why he took her to be his daughter: but in divine adoption, there is nothing in the adopted that could move the adopter to bestow such a favour; no worth nor worthiness, no love nor loveliness, nothing attracting in them; children of wrath by nature, as others; transgressors from the womb, and rebels against God. There were so many objections to their adoption, and so many arguments against it, and none for it in themselves, that the Lord is represented as making a difficulty of it, and saying, “How shall I put them among the children?” (Jer. 3:19), such blackamoors and Ethiopians as these are? so abominable and so disobedient, enemies in their minds by wicked works, hateful and hating one another?"

So, it seems that there are several ways in which Greco-Roman adoption was unlike divine adoption (or huiothesia). If this is so (and it is), then why insist that they must be alike in the sense of making one a child of another? God adopts or son places those who are already his by birth. This son placing also is not what makes a person a child, but one that recognizes that the child has now reached full growth and finished his education and now entitled to possess and rule over his inheritance?

As I also observed in previous chapters spoke of how some believers (Arminians, Pelagians) affirm that God chose people who were penitent believers, or based upon conditions, while other believers (Calvinists) affirm that God did not choose because a person was better or different. 

"4. In civil adoption, the adopter, though he takes one into his family, and makes him his son and heir, and gives him the name and title of a son, and a right to an inheritance designed for him; he cannot give him the nature of a son, nor qualifications fitting him for the use and enjoyment of the estate he is adopted to; he cannot give him a suitable disposition and temper of mind, nor communicate goodness, wisdom, and prudence for the management of it; he may turn out a fool, or a prodigal: but the divine adopter makes his sons partakers of the divine nature, and makes them meet for the inheritance with the saints in light."

But all this reasoning just shows how absurd it is to affirm that God both adopts and begets his children. Since being born of God gives everything to the begotten child (and more), then why the need to adopt? What does adoption do that being begotten doesn't do? Gill, and others, find that adoption does not do everything needed for making one a child of God, saying that it does not give the adopted child the nature of the adopter. But, why don't they see how being born of God does everything adoption is claimed to do but also gives the nature of God?

"5. Persons adopted in a civil sense cannot enjoy the inheritance while the adoptive father is living, not till after his death: but in spiritual adoption the adopted enjoy the inheritance, though their father is the everlasting and ever living God; and Christ, the firstborn, lives for ever, with whom they are joint heirs." 

Throughout the scriptures, however, the eternal inheritance is said to be due to those who are God's children, and mature sons, who are such by a new birth. If the bible says the inheritance is the right of those who are born of God, then why say it is rather due to being adopted? 

6. In some cases civil adoption might be made null and void; as among the Romans, when against the right of the pontifex, and without the decree of the college; but spiritual adoption is never made void on any account."

This is interesting because many preachers have argued that Roman law forbad any adopter (father) to ever disinherit or annul an adoption and then argue that this proves eternal security (or "once saved always saved). Gill, however, says that there are cases where this is not true. The truth is, being begotten of God is all the security a person needs. Those who have been born of God cannot undo their new birth. If they did, then they would need to be born again and again and again.

I submit then that Gill was contradictory in what he wrote on this subject, although he seem to come close to the truth at times.